Grade the FO thus far addressing offensive line woes

Lots of time to go here with the draft, FA, cuts, trades etc...

I am feeling a lot more positive about it than I was a year ago, we're heading in the right direction for sure.

Need an "I - incomplete" option.

So far a C-.

C

Joeckel and Oday are hardly inspiring pickups, but if they were, someone else would have gotten to them first. We'll see.

Love my Hawks........lackluster moves though. The two really have to deliver or its just more non chalance towards the O trenches.

B for effort.

c_hawkbob":2nxt0zkx said:

Need an "I - incomplete" option.

So far a C-.

Click to expand...

Agree. I rounded to D, but at this point it is only a gut feeling until we can see the "finished" product. Also that is up slightly from last years F.

In a vacuum, D.........but considering the terrible O-line FA market this year, I'll bump it up to a C.

But the bottom line is the guys we signed are barely borderline starters, and on a team with a good line would be backups from day 1. So the fact that they're coming in here as starters is an indictment of just how bleak our O-line group is.

I think they have done everything possible outside of cutting our large contract players to free up money to pay these stupid contracts given to O-Linemen this year.

I gave them a C mainly due to the terms of the Joeckel deal. Now, it may pan out as you figure he either starts at LT or at LG but that deal had more guaranteed money than I thought he'd get.

It's also clear that they believe the current young OL will grow in year 2 and I think that's very likely. I posted some numbers a while back but the offense produced 26 or 27 PPG when the starting 5 was Fant, Glowinski, Britt, Ifedi, and Gilliam.

A for effort, C + for player quality, incomplete for execution. Time will tell.

It was a weak FA class, and the draft class is weak too. Hard to find the quality reinforcements regardles, but just throwing money at the problem won't work.

The grade should need reassessment after the season starts.

Hard to say what they will do in the draft, especially with all the great defensive talent available. The first round could have Bolles dropping as far as us. I would hope they would get him if he's there.

Yeah we need DB, but there is the 2nd round (Adoree' Jackson PLEASE) and we have 3 rd's.

Largent80":3dt67hbr said:

Hard to say what they will do in the draft, especially with all the great defensive talent available. The first round could have Bolles dropping as far as us. I would hope they would get him if he's there.

Yeah we need DB, but there is the 2nd round (Adoree' Jackson PLEASE) and we have 3 rd's.

Click to expand...

Why we went so hard after FA O-linemen tipped our hand as to what we're going to do in the draft, go hard after DB's, D-lineman and WR's.

This is an absolutely awful O-lineman class, so I'd be shocked if we draft one before the 4th or 5th round.

I give them an A; It's not their fault that Lang was just teasing...John Schneider can only work with the tools at his ready.
It's like I need a jackhammer, and you're handing me a screwdriver? :lol:
I think the more pertinent question, How will Tom Cable Coach these players up to respectability...The answer to this will affect how , Russell Wilson, the Run Game, and Darryl Bevell get graded out.

A

Especially in such a bad year for reloading along the O line. The value for what we did sign is good. I don't see any real reaches or bad money here. And the one alpha that got away -- I can't fault them for laying down the biggest offer on the table.

At least the issue has their attention and is being addressed.

Solid B.

Sometimes the best deal is the deal you don't make. I'm glad they didn't get desperate and just throw a bunch of money at someone in a bad contract like the Chargers did with Okung. I like the guys they have brought in with the low risk contracts they got them on especially when you consider how crazy the market was.

What's always missing from these discussions is the financial side of things. Given unlimited money, of course the signings are relative crap. Top FAs like Okung or Lang got paid elsewhere. Could the Seahawks overpaid and got them to come? I'm sure. Should they have? Heck no.

If they gave Okung $15M a year and Lang $12M a year, that would be such a big giant F in my book. True that they spent way too little on the OL last year, but they should not be throwing a ton of money at this position group.

How can anybody give them an A for cripes sake? Oday and Jokel both stink and we paid Jokel 7 million guaranteed. Thats an epic failure. They deserve an E for effort at the most.

The OL FA scene may have been stupid, but nobody, NOBODY was lining up to pay Joeckel 7. So that money is an F on its face. Although...Fant was so AWFUL last year (oh but he's so athletic, oh but he's so good for a basketball player) that I kinda consider the 7 mil our "Fant tax" for being so inexplicably stupid with our OL plan.

Last year I gave the org credit for effort when they drafted multiple offensive linemen. "They are finally recognizing the issue and working towards a solution!" I said to myself. I was also happy that they drafted players who had actually played the position before, which was an improvement.

Then I saw how those linemen played, and how the overall plan played out.

From here on out my grade every season starts as an F. If they make an undeniable upgrade like Lang, I'll make an exception. But a couple of scrubs for whom we are depending on Cable's coaching wizardry don't move the needle.

I also don't take for granted that players on our OL improve linearly from year to year, like many on this board seem to, and I don't believe in the magic gelling fairly. Weeks of Nowak starting didn't improve the cohesion of the line because the player sucked and the coaching didn't offset it. That could apply to any of our returning players (although in a twist ending Britt is the one I have the most faith in).